RA Coastal Builders Pty Ltd v Tummon

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

RA Coastal Builders Pty Ltd v Tummon & Anor [2025] QCAT 208

PARTIES:

RA COASTAL BUILDERS PTY LTD

(applicant)

v

SUMMER TUMMON

(first respondent)

TODD BROADFOOT

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

BDL249-22

MATTER TYPE:

Building matters

DELIVERED ON:

30 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

5 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Howe

ORDERS:

1.     Summer Tummon and Todd Broadfoot must pay RA Coastal Builders Pty Ltd the sum of $26,924.57 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10% from the date of order until and including the date of payment.

2.     Any application for costs by a party shall be made with supporting submissions and be filed in the Tribunal with a copy to the other party by 4pm on 13 June 2025.

3.     The responding party may file submissions in response in the Tribunal with a copy to the applying party by 4pm on 27 June 2025.

4.     Submissions must address both the assessment and fixing of costs and with respect to the latter, with supporting evidence.

5.     Any decision about costs shall be determined on the papers.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – THE CONTRACT – CONSTRUCTION OF PARTICULAR CONTRACTS AND IMPLIED CONDITIONS – OTHER MATTERS – where the contractor engaged a sub-contractor to re-roof the owners’ home – where the contractor issued progress claims for the final two stages of the contract including practical completion – where the owners complained about the standard of work and refused to pay – where new sub-contractors were engaged to perform rectification work – where the certifier issued a Form 21 – where the owners engaged a roofing contractor who reported defective work – where the contractor instituted proceedings claiming payment of the stages of work and in the alternative a claim in quantum meruit – where the work as rectified was sufficient to entitle the contractor to claim the stage payments – where the contractor had not utilised the contractual procedures entitling payment pursuant to contract – where the contractor was entitled to claim in quantum meruit for the value of work done – where a claimed variation was not allowed because the contractor failed to establish that the work was not already within the scope of work of the contract – where there was minor defective work with battens and evidence of swarf left on roofing sheets but no evidence of cost of rectification for that – where the claim for interest was not under the contract but under general law and therefore to be calculated pursuant to s 54(1)(c) Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld), s 77(3)(c)

Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2018 (Qld), s 54(1)(c)

Cochrane v Lees [2021] QCATA 74

Harrison v Meehan [2017] QCA 315
Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 32 Miller v Lida Build Pty Ltd [2015] QCATA 137
Mondel v Steel (1841) 8 M & W 858;